why didn't they change the lyric??
Credibility score: 45/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "why didn't they change the lyric??" and rated it 45/100 for credibility (a BS score of 55/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-03. Its weakest claim — "Hears 'cheating' in the song — emotional button reaction" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as emotional button. 27 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Claims analyzed
Sets up a competition between two kid cover brands — framing as a showdown — No Frame (75/100)
Straightforward framing — presents the comparison clearly without loaded language.
Questions the logic of a luxury car in a kids' video — calls out the mismatch — Missing Context (45/100)
Points out the absurdity of a Porsche in a children's video — classic 'who is this for?' reaction.
Hears 'cheating' in the song — emotional button reaction — Emotional Button (20/100)
Drops the shocked 'Hey' like the line itself is the problem — plays the morality card without showing the actual lyric.
Original lyric is 'riding on my bladder' — states as fact — Missing Context (45/100)
Calls it 'the real lyric' with zero proof — treating their ear as gospel.
Changing 'cheating' to 'bestie' protects kids — moral framing — Emotional Button (35/100)
Assumes any mention of cheating automatically corrupts children — classic 'won't someone think of the kids' move.
Mini Pop beats Kidz Bop overall — sweeping verdict with no scoring system — Confidence Mismatch (40/100)
Hands Mini Pop the dub while admitting they 'don't want to rate them out of 10' — then rates them anyway.
Presents personal opinion as objective fact about song suitability — Opinion (75/100)
Calls it 'low-key works better' — just their taste dressed as analysis.
Suggests band pivot based on single opinion, no industry context — Opinion (50/100)
Jumps from 'this one song works' to 'they should switch careers' — huge leap.
Kids Bop wins this round — just a casual opinion, no real framing. — No Frame (75/100)
Just a straightforward opinion on which version is better. No hidden agenda here.
Old info 'confirms' itself — circular logic dressed as new insight. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Claiming old info 'confirms' itself is a bit of a logical loop, not actual confirmation.
Questioning Kids Bop's self-critique — highlights a perceived internal contradiction. — No Frame (75/100)
A fair observation about a potential inconsistency in how Kids Bop presents itself.
Math framing: treats repeating decimal as exact two-thirds — Missing Context (45/100)
6 repeating is 2/3, but 6.6666… is just an approximation — the framing hides the difference.
Loaded language framing: calls intro sketches 'irrelevant' without evidence — Loaded Language (30/100)
'Irrelevant' is a judgment, not a fact — framing skips asking if the sketches serve a different purpose.
False equivalence framing: treats both covers as equally bad despite picking a winner — False Equivalence (40/100)
Says both are bad, then immediately ranks one better — the 'equally terrible' framing collapses under their own ranking.
Volume game framing: treats view count as meaningful popularity signal without context — Volume Game (35/100)
10 million views gets called 'crazy' — but no baseline for what 'normal' would be, so the surprise feels manufactured.
Kids Bop sounds robotic vs Mini Pop's 'heartfelt' singing — Loaded Language — Loaded Language (45/100)
Pits 'robotic' against 'from the heart' like that's the only choice — classic loaded framing.
Taylor Swift's 'Me!' is her worst song — Confidence Mismatch — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
Calls it 'genuinely might be her worst song' with zero evidence beyond personal taste — huge confidence, tiny support.
Original lyric was already kid-friendly so it 'doesn't sound bad' — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)
Assumes the original line was written for kids, but 'Me!' was never aimed at children — that's doing a lot of heavy lifting.
questions if same 5 kids stayed 12 for 20 years — rhetorical exaggeration — Emotional Button (45/100)
Frames continuity as creepy by asking if kids 'stayed 12' — plays on childhood image for effect.
Questions if Mini Pop Kids are the same five kids for 20 years — rhetorical exaggeration — Loaded Language (45/100)
Frames the group as frozen in time like the kids are vampires — funny exaggeration but skips the rotating cast reality
Mini Pop Kids look identical across 20 years — rhetorical exaggeration — Loaded Language (45/100)
Presents literal impossibility as genuine confusion — classic 'can't be real' framing.
Mini Pop Kids declared 'best' via arbitrary scoring — false equivalence — False Equivalence (25/100)
Creates fake competition with made-up 3-2 score — both options equally bad but one declared winner.
declares Mini Pop winner before finishing comparison — false equivalence framing — False Equivalence (20/100)
Calls the contest over while admitting both versions are bad — uses 'winner' framing to avoid deeper critique.
Declaring Mini Pop winner — tongue-in-cheek trophy framing — No Frame (75/100)
Self-aware joke — openly admits the 'win' is meaningless.
Calls Mini Pop Kids the first AND best kids cover group — confidence mismatch — Confidence Mismatch (30/100)
States Mini Pop as 'first' and 'best' with zero evidence provided for either claim
Calls their ranking 'real science' — ironic framing — False Equivalence (20/100)
Equates their informal ranking to scientific research — obvious joke, but still a false equivalence
Self-aware absurdity framing — 'stupidest video ever' as ironic branding — No Frame (75/100)
Owns the low-stakes premise upfront — calls the whole exercise ridiculous before anyone else can.
See the full analysis with sources and timestamps →